Leica photographers - the naked truth

[Huss]

Rockwell may be relatively successful but I seriously doubt he is as famous, rich or successful as Mr. Richards.

I'm going to start wearing a bandana when I use my Leicas. Bandanas worked for Keith, so he must be onto something.
Bresson wore cravats. Which pretty much is French for bandana. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[faberryman]

You can still get those little type balls and ribbons should you find your typewriter.

It was from the 1950s, well before they invented the Selectric balls. It was like the old manuals only it had a giant motor. I was a slow typist so it sounded like I was taking target practice. If you were a fast typist, it sounded more like a machine gun. It was a thrill a minute to type on. A great feeling of power when you strapped yourself in to type a paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It does seem to be the case that some people think having a Leica or Rolleiflex of Hasselblad will make them a better photographer. But the way it actually works: a reliable, high quality camera does what you want it to, so, if you make good photos, you're the one who did it and, if you make bad photos, you're the one who did it. It's not that you can credit the equipment - it's that you can't blame it.
Also, regarding quality and grain and abnormalities and defects: most photos are boring and all that stuff can make the mundane more interesting. People already see the world free of grain and (unless they have the wrong glasses) tack sharp. Show them something different.

I agree when one has high end photographic equipment, if the photograph(s) are not good, the user has only himself or herself to blame.

 

[MattKing]

I agree when one has high end photographic equipment, if the photograph(s) are not good, the user has only himself or herself to blame.

This generally applies just as much when one has mediocre photographic equipment.
It doesn't apply nearly as much if one has broken photographic equipment.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... if one has broken photographic equipment.

Now there's a thing: Use the most broke-down photographic equipment you have to take pics. Grateful Dead's "Broke Down Palace," and Tom Rush's "Lost My Driving Wheel" could form the soundtrack. Can't take pictures without a soundtrack, AA would agree with that.

 

[NB23]

I think its high time you presented your portfolio for us to see. I mean, if you are getting superior images from your Leica, its time you shared them with us!

I’m so high in the art of photography that you wouldn’t understand. Depends on your level.
Lately I’m into ultra minimalism. Yesterday I fixed a blank sheet and I called it “Life”. You want to see it?

 

[Pieter12]

This generally applies just as much when one has mediocre photographic equipment.
It doesn't apply nearly as much if one has broken photographic equipment.

The saddest is when you have broken high-end equipment.

 

[NB23]

Rockwell may be relatively successful but I seriously doubt he is as famous, rich or successful as Mr. Richards.

The running gag around Keith Richards, for the last decade or so, is that he’s a 300 year old bloke and he will still outlive us all.

I was simply adding to the “Chuck Norris” joke. Nobody really meant that Ken Rockwell was a Karate master, yeah?

 

[Don_ih]

This generally applies just as much when one has mediocre photographic equipment.

It doesn't, because mediocre equipment is more prone to failure - it's less reliable - and it tends not to do what it purports to do very well. That's true of all mediocre equipment, not just cameras.

A dollar store hammer will drive a nail. Use it to drive 1000 nails and your arm will fall off.

I hate grain and the fuzziness.

I don't think grain is interesting

You miss the point. It's not about what you or I like, when you talk about how some people use cheap cameras, purposely overexpose and overdevelop, or whatever they do. It's all only about what they like. They tend to think the equipment or process adds something to the image. They tend to think grain adds character or mood to an image. They would find tack-sharp and grain-free images mundane and boring - or, at the very least, it's just not what they're doing so don't have much to say about it.

Also, well over 99.99% of the photos taken by anyone, any time, anywhere don't matter in the slightest. It's pretty petty to dismiss them as being grainy or fuzzy when even the sharp ones end up burnt in a dump.

 

[removedacct1]

I’m so high in the art of photography that you wouldn’t understand. Depends on your level.
Lately I’m into ultra minimalism. Yesterday I fixed a blank sheet and I called it “Life”. You want to see it?

Translation: "I don't produce anything - I just have opinions about EVERYTHING"

 

[NB23]

Translation: "I don't produce anything - I just have opinions about EVERYTHING"

Well, if you count the 22,000 prints I’ve done in the darkroom this past year alone, it probably is something more like “I have valid opinions on analog photography”

 

[Pioneer]

Interestingly, most lenses made in the past 50 years, and even further back in my experience, are quite capable of producing sharp, contrasty images. I don't think it is necessary to have Leica or Nikon engraved anywhere on it.

In fact, I wonder how all those photographers were able to get high quality photographs way before either Leica or Nikon were even making cameras or lenses. Truly a miracle.

The saddest is when you have broken high-end equipment.

Been there, done that.

It is even worse when you repair it and it breaks again right away.

That is the story of my life with Nikon. I think that when a Nikon breaks and is basically no longer reliable someone up high whispers in my ear..."Buy it, you will love it."

 

[Pioneer]

Well, if you count the 22,000 prints I’ve done in the darkroom this past year alone, it probably is something more like “I have valid opinions on analog photography”

I am pretty sure the opinions part is correct.

The part I am still unsure about is the valid part.

 

[NB23]

I lied, it’s more like 18,000 prints actually. I got carried away. I slacked down to 25-30 prints a day this past month.

Here is a picture of 3 months worth of printing, 4x10 fb (xpan negatives).

 

[MattKing]

I agree when one has high end photographic equipment, if the photograph(s) are not good, the user has only himself or herself to blame.

This generally applies just as much when one has mediocre photographic equipment.
It doesn't apply nearly as much if one has broken photographic equipment.

It doesn't, because mediocre equipment is more prone to failure - it's less reliable - and it tends not to do what it purports to do very well. That's true of all mediocre equipment, not just cameras.

Once the mediocre equipment becomes broken equipment, it is fine to blame it, if you wish.
And it probably depends on your definition of mediocre.
I include a lot of consumer grade cameras/equipment in my definition - and more good photographs have come from them than all the high end photographic equipment combined. That is because vastly more photographs have been taken with consumer grade cameras/equipment than all the high end photographic equipment combined.
A well employed Olympus Trip 35 is overall more likely to create good results than a poorly employed Leica - of whatever vintage. Heck, a well employed Instamatic 124 is overall more likely to create good results than a poorly employed Leica - in all the very wide range of circumstances that are suited to the Instamatic 124.
That being said, high quality equipment is often a joy to use and often capable of providing longer service.

 

[fdonadio]

The problem is not with discussing a particular product's quality, is it?

You conveyed exactly what I think, but in a way more elegant and clear way. I agree with everything you said.

 

[fdonadio]

As long as there's good whiskey on said glass...

Hey, Flavio, el chico chistoso! Hahaha!

 

[fdonadio]

I'm going to start wearing a bandana when I use my Leicas. Bandanas worked for Keith, so he must be onto something.
Bresson wore cravats. Which pretty much is French for bandana. Coincidence? I think not.

What about starting a band of photographers? I’m in, but the only instrument I can play (awfully) ist the drum.

 

[flavio81]

Hey, Flavio, el chico chistoso! Hahaha!

Thanks Flavio... maybe a glass of Cachaça instead? I love caipirinha, one of my favorite drinks.

 

[fdonadio]

Thanks Flavio... maybe a glass of Cachaça instead? I love caipirinha, one of my favorite drinks.

Some people say my caipirinha is top notch, but I use a lot of ice, which some people complain about. One thing I’m sure: we could all have this discussion drinking caipirinha somewhere in the world. I can take the cachaça. Lemon, sugar and ice are pretty easy to find.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think its high time you presented your portfolio for us to see. I mean, if you are getting superior images from your Leica, its time you shared them with us!

NB23 has posted his photographs many time. The problem that you are willing to make outlandish statements to deflect from reality.

 

[removed account4]

Keith Richards / Chuck Norris of photography ? no clue what any of that means.. who cares they enjoy using a camera ... its too bad people have to be so harsh.

I think its high time you presented your portfolio for us to see. I mean, if you are getting superior images from your Leica, its time you shared them with us!

HI Paul
He's shown a few of them from time to time, not often though ... street / candid work some fun some serious, I had no idea it was done by a Leica though.. its hard to tell on the inter web what the camera was.
John

 

[NB23]

One from the fixing bath, as we speak.

Blurry. Rolleicord, blue filter, acros, ilford satin rc, hc110

 

[Huss]

One from the fixing bath, as we speak.

Blurry. Rolleicord, blue filter, acros, ilford satin rc, hc110

View attachment 282592

The irony of presenting a blurry pic from someone who demands that everyone has to use the sharpest lenses, the finest gear and nothing but that.
Not judging the pic. It is what you make of it.
Just looks like it could have been taken with a Lubitel, or Seagull, or Lomo. And there's nothing wrong with that because gear doesn't matter.
It's your vision man. And your vision for this pic was blurry. Bravo. I doff my bandana to you.

 

[Don_ih]

A well employed Olympus Trip 35 is overall more likely to create good results than a poorly employed Leica - of whatever vintage. Heck, a well employed Instamatic 124 is overall more likely to create good results than a poorly employed Leica - in all the very wide range of circumstances that are suited to the Instamatic 124.

Yeah, the Trip is fine if the meter is working as it should, if the shutter is not sticking, if the aperture hasn't gummed up - all of which are in the process of happening to all of them, so can happen at any time (i.e., not reliable). I'm not talking about a well-employed cheap camera vs a poorly employed expensive camera - I'm talking about competently employed cameras. A less reliable camera is less reliable, even in the hands of a very competent person.

And you'll notice I didn't say the competent person would blame the camera for their crappy pictures - I said having a known-to-be-working, high quality camera makes it so he can only blame himself. When you know how to use the equipment and know what it is capable of, everything it does is your doing.